Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:26:12 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

How many pedestrians *on the pavement* are hit by motorists every
year?
And how many of those motorists are not on the footway because they have lost
control of the vehicle (for whatever reason)?

Are you implying that an out-of-control motorist on the footway poses
less of a danger than a cyclist there on purpose, or that being
out-of-control on a footway is somehow an acceptable if you are a
motorist?

I wasn't implying anything.

I was inviting the PP to consider the common sets of circumstances - and in
particular, the differences in intention.

Peter Clinch wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:

But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists.

(By the way good clipping of the post)

Walking to work this morning I encountered several vehicles parked on
the pavement (they must have got their somehow...) and no cyclists on
the pavement.

Had every one of them collided with a pedestrian - or (as far as you know)
none of them?

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Tony Dragon wrote:

But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists.

(By the way good clipping of the post)

Walking to work this morning I encountered several vehicles parked on
the pavement (they must have got their somehow...) and no cyclists on
the pavement.

It depends where you are, in other words.


this thread is quite interesting,

A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the
thread is to defend cyclists.

I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came within
milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and that was met
with a resounding silence from the assembled masses.

Two wheels good & everything else bad?

pk

pk wrote:

A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of
the thread is to defend cyclists.

The gist of my post was simply not to go about specifically attacking
them without a bit of context. "Cyclists" are a diverse group and
suggesting they're all good or all bad is dopey.

I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came
within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and
that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses.

Well what was I expected to say?
Silence isn't an attack on you, or a defence of someone bad.

Two wheels good & everything else bad?

That is reading /far/ more into reactions than I think is reasonable.
In fact it's going rather in the opposite direction. I think you've
rather over-egged your attempts at "honest broker" impartiality with
that last little rant-ette.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"pk" wrote in message
...
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Tony Dragon wrote:

But there are more cyclists on the pavements that motorists.

(By the way good clipping of the post)

Walking to work this morning I encountered several vehicles parked on
the pavement (they must have got their somehow...) and no cyclists on
the pavement.

It depends where you are, in other words.


this thread is quite interesting,

A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of the
thread is to defend cyclists.

And are "cyclists" the ones who are at fault? The defence is against attacks
on all cyclists, including people like you. Can you see people defending the
particular cyclist?

I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came
within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and that
was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses.

It needed comment? ISTR Guy commenting.

Two wheels good & everything else bad?

Don't think so. Looks to me like it's you assuming how everybody else is
thinking.

pk wrote:


I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came
within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and
that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses.


AOL doesn't support Usenet any more, and as I have never used AOL , I'm
not in the habit of typing " Me too LOL".

If someone very quickly replies with a comment that would closely
mirror my own ie "Stupid Twunt!" , then I won't bother adding my own.
That doesn't meant that I support the behaviour.

pk wrote:


this thread is quite interesting,

A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of
the thread is to defend cyclists.

I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came
within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and
that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses.

Two wheels good & everything else bad?


In the context of injuries resulting from road accidents, yes.

Señor Chris writes:

In the context of injuries resulting from road accidents, yes.

I dunno. I'd rather be hit by a windcheetah than a pan european


-dan

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:45:27 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

Paul Weaver considered Thu, 22 Jan
2009 15:12:50 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On 22 Jan, 22:55, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:31:17 +0000, Tom Crispin

wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:21 +0000,
wrote:

A grandmother suffered broken bones and a bloody face after she was
hit by a cyclist riding on the pavement.

Perhaps she should have worn a helmet. *As has been claimed
repeatedly, helmets protect against head and upper facial injury.

Ho,ho, ho - very funny - mind it may become true as more and more
****wit cyclists think it is OK to ride on pavements/run in to
pedestrians.

More and more? Evidence of increaseing proportion of pavement
cyclists?

Of course - more and more councils are applying Magic Paint to
pavements to encourage the misconception that cyclists belong there.



Noun - Psycholist
Pronunciation Key : psy·cho·list.
Origin: based on the outbursts of a rabid Psycholist called Guy
Chapman

A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify
their views:

Examples:
.....
4) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists.
Used to describe signage to cyclist on pavements. Origin unknown.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:45:43 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

pk wrote:

A cyclist was clearly at fault and injures pedestrian and the gist of
the thread is to defend cyclists.

The gist of my post was simply not to go about specifically attacking
them without a bit of context. "Cyclists" are a diverse group and
suggesting they're all good or all bad is dopey.

I posted the other day about a grossly irresponsible cyclist who came
within milli seconds of causing me (and himself) serious injury, and
that was met with a resounding silence from the assembled masses.

Well what was I expected to say?
Silence isn't an attack on you, or a defence of someone bad.

Two wheels good & everything else bad?

That is reading /far/ more into reactions than I think is reasonable.
In fact it's going rather in the opposite direction. I think you've
rather over-egged your attempts at "honest broker" impartiality with
that last little rant-ette.

Pete.


It is however most interesting that pk has spotted the traits which
most other newcomers have also experienced.

I wonder why that is?

How long before he is to be called a troll - we can't have
disagreement and alternative points of view in urc now can we.



--


Noun - Psycholist
Pronunciation Key : psy·cho·list.
Origin: based on the outbursts of a rabid Psycholist called Guy
Chapman

A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify
their views:

Examples:
1) "cycle helmet" - they would rather pretend that such devices
do not exist; they will try and overcome their problem by using the
alternative "h*l*et" - or just "h".
2) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in
the context of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they
must try and ridicule it as they will not be able to fully comprehend
the benefits as seen for all road users. This is achieved by using
the alternative "farcility".
3) "Cager" is used provocatively instead of the word "motorist",
in the hope that it irritates motorists; it doesn't - it makes them
laugh at the psycholist's inadequacies.
4) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists.
Used to describe signage to cyclist on pavements. Origin unknown.
5) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion

Not everyone who frequents the group URC is a "psycholist".
Psycholists are not very bright in general and are obliged to
demonstrate that they lack common sense; they are very good at this.

A common pseudonym for a "psycholist" is "****wit".